Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Mark,
I will agree that NAFTA has become a code phrase which denotes more than the specific trade agreement referenced by the acronym.
"In October, 1922, the Black Shirts marched on Rome. The army stood aside and the armed party-militia held the city in its grip. At Mussolini's demand, he was made prime minister, and the parliament meekly voted his government full powers for a year." - from History of Civilization - Modern and Contemporary By Hutton Webster http://books.google.com/books?id=K5CQiKs2GX4C&pg=PA446&sig=rMBvdJbHj4gBS...
Hardly an auspicious start for labor...
Death as we know it...
Posted: December 8, 2009 04:06 PM
Does Death Exist? New Theory Says 'No'
Many of us fear death. We believe in death because we have been told we will die. We associate ourselves with the body, and we know that bodies die. But a new scientific theory suggests that death is not the terminal event we think.
One well-known aspect of quantum physics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. One mainstream explanation, the "many-worlds" interpretation, states that each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe (the 'multiverse'). A new scientific theory - called biocentrism - refines these ideas. There are an infinite number of universes, and everything that could possibly happen occurs in some universe. Death does not exist in any real sense in these scenarios. All possible universes exist simultaneously, regardless of what happens in any of them. Although individual bodies are destined to self-destruct, the alive feeling - the 'Who am I?'- is just a 20-watt fountain of energy operating in the brain. But this energy doesn't go away at death. One of the surest axioms of science is that energy never dies; it can neither be created nor destroyed. But does this energy transcend from one world to the other?
Consider an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result. The linkages between these various histories and universes transcend our ordinary classical ideas of space and time. Think of the 20-watts of energy as simply holo-projecting either this or that result onto a screen. Whether you turn the second beam splitter on or off, it's still the same battery or agent responsible for the projection.
According to Biocentrism, space and time are not the hard objects we think. Wave your hand through the air - if you take everything away, what's left? Nothing. The same thing applies for time. You can't see anything through the bone that surrounds your brain. Everything you see and experience right now is a whirl of information occurring in your mind. Space and time are simply the tools for putting everything together.
Death does not exist in a timeless, spaceless world. In the end, even Einstein admitted, "Now Besso" (an old friend) "has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us...know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Immortality doesn't mean a perpetual existence in time without end, but rather resides outside of time altogether...
Robert Lanza, MD is considered one of the leading scientists in the world. He is the author of "Biocentrism," a book that lays out his theory of everything.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_3...
Quark:
Facts are facts: We had very little trade with Mexico before NAFTA, but cheap imported cars and electronics from Asia were big in this country well before then. Our exports to Mexico grew nearly as much as our imports from there since, while our trade deficit elsewhere continued to bulge. All I'm hearing is low-level xenophobia.
Mark,
Or, maybe that's what "moot" is (and I don't really want to believe it...)
Mark,
It's not moot, but there isn't much we can do...
Quark:
Maybe what you mean is that everything (or most everything) we are talking about here is moot.
Mark,
The jobs that provided the ORIGINAL "sucking sound" (in Mexico) have moved on to countries that are even more amenable to the evils of the transnationals...
They STILL suck...(the jobs...)
Mark,
Not only that, I think many idealists who worked for Obama are relegated to the cynical majority of the electorate now.
Also, that sucking sound I hear is not American jobs being sucked into Mexico, but the number of people who are sucked into that notion—especially since 19 million more Mexicans live in poverty since NAFTA, mainly because of the duty-free exception to NAFTA: protectionism that benefits U.S. farmers. Most “experts” on the economic impact of NAFTA have concluded that job losses have for the most part been made-up in job gains (or jobs retained) by increased exports to Canada and Mexico, which is far more in line with imports than the U.S. has with most of its trading “partners.” The U.S. was losing jobs to Asia, for example, long before NAFTA; I remember the 1971 Raiders’ hit “Indian Reservation”: “And all the beads we made by hand—are nowadays made in Japan.” China, in fact, received “most favored nation” trade status in 1980, long before NAFTA, and we are paying the price for it. If the U.S. rescinded most favored nation status for China now, import duties on Chinese goods would skyrocket, making similar U.S.-made goods more competitive. But every year MFN status is reinstated for China, mostly with little comment. The result is jobs being sucked there, because of an import/export trade imbalance of 5 to 1. In fact every country that the U.S. has bestowed “most favored nation” status on—long before NAFTA—has been the occasion for job loss in the U.S. I’m just tired of the hypocrisy and the scapegoating.
Given the greater negative effect NAFTA has had on Mexico than the U.S., it is not surprising to note that illegal immigration has increased from 3 million before NAFTA to its current level. This year, unemployment in Mexico is at record levels, but it is “officially” much lower than U.S. unemployment; however, it is just a “guesstament.” Over a quarter of the Mexican labor force works “under the table,” that is, in the “informal” economy which the government is unable to regulate or collect taxes from; businesses as well as people can form this “informal” economy, and apparently this sector of the economy is also having problems.
Mark,
I think your question is a moot point. A true leader of a labor group (who has the welfare of the people in mind and wants to represent them fairly) would have a hard time being elected in today's system. There would be no huge corporate backers to fund such a candidate's campaign.
Since I wasn’t able to respond to Zero G in time yesterday, I want to reiterate what I stated in another post. Mussolini was obviously not a "democrat" but a dictator; he betrayed the ideals of the syndicalist-as-corporatism-movement just as Communism betrayed Marxism. I asked you folks if representative government through leaders of various labor groups from various industries--which syndicalists/corporatists originally intended--is more democratic and representative than the current model. I didn’t seem to ascertain a response to that in your post.
The blanket media coverage of the Lakewood police officers was starting to make me ill, but the news below the cutline is virtually guaranteed to continue the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year, and nobody gives a damn, at least not in the U.S. Senate. Overcoming the "last hurdle," Harry Reid, that gutless wonder with apparently no ability to push needed reform, agreed to cutting out a public option altogether. Apparently the public option is to be "replaced" by a "non-profit" private insurance package, and the age limit for medicare is to be reduced to 55. Given the track record of so-called non-profits like Blue Cross and Blue Shield, this is not "reform," it is a cheap bandaid that will not lower costs or increase coverage.
This means there is no mechanism to force insurance companies to behave honestly in the public interest. This also means that the CBO report on the Senate bill needs to be amended, for this will certainly mean than millions more people will be unable to afford health insurance—and still with the threat of fines (and the possibility of jail) if people refuse to be eaten by the insurance industry barracudas. This is obviously a win-win for the insurance industry; even if they cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they can still charge whatever they want, for whatever they wish to cover.
Here's one of our amazing LEADERS fighting back against fascist corporate media:
Progressive Change Campaign Committee says:
"Wow. One day after announcing our new TV ad pressuring Sen. Joe Lieberman on public option, the momentum is tremendous.
News broke yesterday that progressive and conservative senators are meeting to strike a final deal on health care and that Lieberman thinks his obstruction makes him "relevant." By expanding our ad in DC, we can tell other senators to ignore Lieberman -- he's not even representing his own constituents.
Check out this example of Lieberman's arrogance, in direct response to our TV ad. From the Washington Post's Greg Sargent:
A spokesman for Joe Lieberman, whose talent for annoying liberals seems to have grown exponentially in the heat of the health care fight, is now responding to a liberal group’s new ad hammering the Senator by dismissing the public option as the “agenda of narrow ideological interest groups.”
Seriously? 68% of Connecticut voters who support the public option are a "narrow ideological interest?" This guy deserves to feel more heat.
Rachel Maddow played our Lieberman ad on national TV and said, "That's what it looks like when liberals push back!" Dozens of other media also reported on our ad.
NATIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE OF OUR AD
New York Times: Anti-Lieberman Ad Points to ‘Public Option’ Support
Washington Post: CT-Sen: Liberals attack Lieberman in ads
Washington Post Plumline (Greg Sargent): Lieberman Spox: Public Option Is “Agenda of Narrow Ideological Interest Groups”
CBS: Progressive Group Blasts Joe Lieberman Over Public Option
ABC: Lieberman vs. Liberals 'for Lieberman'
NBC: First Read
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow covers PCCC Lieberman ad
CNN: Liberal group takes aim at Lieberman
Huffington Post: New Anti-Lieberman Ad Gets Personal About Public Option
TPM: Liberal Group Takes Aim At Lieberman For Obstructing Public Option
Daily Kos: Payback time! Lieberman pressured in new TV ad
Washington Monthly: Targeting Joe In Connecticut
Boston Globe: Liberal group slams Lieberman
Wonkette: Connecticut For Lieberman Party Displeased With Joe Lieberman Lately!
Politico: PCCC mocks Lieberman
Click here to help expand our ad buy in DC by chipping in $5.
CONNECTICUT MEDIA COVERAGE OF OUR AD
The Day Newspaper (Connecticut): "It's all about Joe"
Hartford Courant: Liberal Group's Ad Targets Lieberman
MyLeftNutmeg Blog: Connecticut For Lieberman
FOX Connecticut local evening news
NBC Connecticut: Ad: "It's All About Joe"
Nearly 2,000 people chipped in to help air this ad -- and now, we're aiming to expand our buy in DC. Can you chip in $5 today?
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/allaboutjoe?refcode=e2_short_...
--Adam Green, Stephanie Taylor, Aaron Swartz, Michael Snook, Forrest Brown, and the PCCC team
Juan Cole writes for Informed Comment. He is or has been a professor at the University of Michigan. His most recent article is December 2, 2009, "Top ten things that could derail Obama's Aghanistan Plan."
Richard,
I would have it that we use the collective mythology of humankind as part of the Jungian "collective unconscious" but what do I know...
I enjoyed reading William S. Lind's article of December 5, 2009, "O=W."
Mark - Mussolini was in no way arguing for more democracy:
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State -- a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values -- interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." - Benito Mussolini
also
"Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority ... a century of Fascism."
and,
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death...
- Benito Mussolini
@ZeroG: I am human and the deity as I understand it is transcendent. I have no farging what drives it and my atheistic tendencies lead me to tend towards not giving a crap . . . In my experience, God is what folk make of it.
My issue was BrianAHayes automatically assuming that religious governments are totalitarian in nature and dog-piling upon the Republicans. It also requires a heavily Christian leaning view of Judeo-Christianity’s tenants to twist the universe to that point of view.
Justice must become purely “might” based. The feminine understanding of justice (charity) must be diminished into a lack of existence. The kidshanu, spirituality, must be discounted. While you will not see me signing up for a theocracy, I can’t drop them all into the toilet.
"Corporatism" seems to have taken on a different meaning now, but should we presume that in it's original intent--to govern by representatives of guilds, unions and similar organizations--it would be more democratic and representative, or would it be more chaotic?
State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. - Benito Mussolini
I don not know what OUR leader looks like. He/She/It has yet to stand up. The time is nigh for someone to fill this form. Unfortunately, that is the failing of the “Obama folk voted for”.
I the tinge of ozone burns in my nostrils and I find myself drawn to the flame of change. I hear the tears filling those voices which can not yet be distinguished. Perhaps there is not yet enough fuel; Americans are desensitized by immersion in fear and pain. Our souls have yet to be set ablaze.
Mark,
The link in my previous post was to a conservative website. Here's one to a more progressive one:
"War Corporatism: The New Fascism"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12017.htm
Richard, are you arguing the reasonableness of YHVH? Such as when the diety attempts to kill its own ambassador to Pharaoh? Exodus 4:24
And what is with all the draining of sacrificial blood at the alter? A certain fondness for flies?
Mark,
Is it possible that "corporatism" is a term that has evolved to have a meaning more suited to today's situation?
"Corporatism comes to America"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/corporatism_comes_to_america.html
@Quark: In “real terms”, leaders are accidents. There are folk with skill sets that allow them to manage. There are folk displaying/embodying that certain presence of being that folk choose to follow. BUT without the conditions that allow those ineffable traits to be recognized . . . We have a ghost without a reason.
Thom’s observations on movement politics are germane. Where there is passion, there is change. Like the fire triangle we must have oxygen, fuel and a spark.